joker97: Thanks to the internet People concentrate their fears on really small things like a watt of Wi-Fi.

When the elephant killing the kids like screen time of the device, pies and sausages, soda and juice are all ignored.

First feed them nylon. Then think about Wi-Fi.

Don't worry; I just received a "sugar is poison" lecture from the same person who just finished telling me about how they sprayed broad-leaf weedkiller (hormone based) on their lawn without using a mask, gloves or even letting it dry before the kids played on it. It's a good thing they didn't spray the lawn with sugar!

joker97: Thanks to the internet People concentrate their fears on really small things like a watt of Wi-Fi.

When the elephant killing the kids like screen time of the device, pies and sausages, soda and juice are all ignored.

First feed them nylon. Then think about Wi-Fi.

Don't worry; I just received a "sugar is poison" lecture from the same person who just finished telling me about how they sprayed broad-leaf weedkiller (hormone based) on their lawn without using a mask, gloves or even letting it dry before the kids played on it. It's a good thing they didn't spray the lawn with sugar!

Sugar contains Carbon. And we all know how bad that is to the environment nowdays.

go back in time a bit1 early NZ assembled TV 'supposedly' spat xrays out the back of it (tube voltage too high ?) I knew 2 men who worked in NZ's asbestos plant, 1 lived to 70+ , the other is still alive

So pick you level of paranoia, pick a tinfoil hat to suit . People from the dangerous risky 50's & 60's can live to the right old age of 70+

1101: go back in time a bit1 early NZ assembled TV 'supposedly' spat xrays out the back of it (tube voltage too high ?) I knew 2 men who worked in NZ's asbestos plant, 1 lived to 70+ , the other is still alive

So pick you level of paranoia, pick a tinfoil hat to suit . People from the dangerous risky 50's & 60's can live to the right old age of 70+

I believe this is called survivor bias.

The ones still around today have stories of working in dangerous situations and being fine.

"Kids are more susceptible "This one really annoys me - kids are smaller, therefore they will absorb less radiation from the surrounding environment. Melanoma is a good way to visualise it. When you are exposed to the sunlight radiation, you can get melanoma. If you have more skin exposed to the sun, there is a higher chance of melanoma. Once you get melanoma or a cancer it then starts to spread throughout your body. By that logic, a fully grown human body is more susceptible as they have more surface area to absorb the radiation.

Thanks for the post - like I said trying to sort facts from fiction.

One potential error noted: Surface area to volume is higher in children than adults, so the ability of rays to hit internal cells is increased in children. smaller cellular creatures are often more susceptible to bad stuff than larger.

also children are still growing, so genes / cells / dna / rna doing more of the splitting, folding, bending stuff - more chance for mishap and radiation is one of the most commonly acknowledged causes of mishap and mutation -therefore children by benefit of their growth phase are more susceptible to environmental toxins and poisons. In towns where environmental poisons have leached into the water or ground it is the children who often take the biggest toll.

nunz: The discussions on EMF are similar to the EMF type studies done on Trasnformers, sub stations and power lines. most of it was rubbished but more and more studies showing strong correlations between high voltage powerlines, transformers and substations - especially in children

Powerlines- again an EMF source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2247309

The 95% confidence intervals all include 1 in other words there is no difference in risk. (1989 is a very old study)

A.

I have done some learning in biostatistics and epidemiology and there has been significant increases in the understanding of what constitutes a good study in this field in the past 20 years. For this reason I would be skeptical of any study which is older that about 2005 (and still skeptical anyway :)

For interest when considering any research there are some basic concepts that need to be considered as these tend to have an impact on the applicability and reliability of results.

Feel free to google these terms, pretty sure they will have wikipedia pages for them, if you have an interest I can guarantee a multi-hour rabbit hole of reading.

Some things that stand out from the first page of this study which relate to the above in no particular order are:"It was not possible to obtain direct measurements of field intensity for this study, or of duration of exposure" No attempt was made to actually measure exposure, given the age of the study an probable lack of GIS I wonder how they actually measured distance (it doesn't say).

"Electoral registration is not compulsory, but largely complete. The roll does not state age or sex, and the population control series was therefore compared to Bromley cases aged 18 or over in an unmatched analysis." Key thing is to match populations, this is the point of a control.

"Most of the dwellings are houses of 1-3 floors or apartment buildings of 2-5 floors; high-rise blocks of 10-12 floors are infrequent."

From this statement it appears they ignored building materials and building height. Lastly it should be stated that there were no statistically significant findings from this study at a (low) level of 95% confidence so it isn't clear to me why it could be considered evidence of a link between RF and cancer (leukaemia specifically)?

Jon

There was a similar study done. They went into the study believing EMF from step down transformer boxes on power poles (those big boxes you used to see) put out EMF that may be responsible for kids getting leukaemia.

They believed the houses closest to the poles would have the highest prevalence owing to proximity. What they found was a correlation between the second closest house and not the first and when they looked at it further the distance somehow related to the wavelength of the EMF they were studying. So in effect the first house was skipped and the second was hit. Their conclusion was the standing wave of the EMF was strongest two houses away in line with EMF wave length.

It was an epidemiological study done in USA. I sw it years ago and how valid or not I have no idea.

My point being, some of the studies ended up with different results to their pre-conceptions and whether they found a correlation by finding a number that happened to coincide with another number or not i don't know - but not all studies pre whatever were necessarily biased - indeed they ended up unbiased and bent to a different belief.

raytaylor: Tell me, If I want to get my staple daily recommendation of nylon, would you recommend I harvest it from yoga pants or fishing line? Which would have the higher concentration or digestability?

Don't confuse it for teflon - that is cancer giving. Remove teflon from your fry pan, coat it in nylon and get your dose that way - but dont burn your food or you will undo all the benefits - the frypan should be used to serve raw food.

"At a research facility in Wollongong, Professor Rodney Croft reaches for a mess of electrodes and wires, and then rolls an elastic cap onto a test subject's head. As director of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, it's his job to investigate the interaction between EM radiation and living systems. "Electro hypersensitive people certainly aren't faking it. The symptoms are very real. They can be extremely debilitating. It's just that there's no relationship between them and the electromagnetic radiation itself," he says."